TY - JOUR

T1 - Detailed analysis of recent drag models using multiple cases of mono-disperse fluidized beds with Geldart-B and Geldart-D particles

AU - Stanly, Ronith

AU - Shoev, Georgy

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2018 Elsevier Ltd

PY - 2018/10/12

Y1 - 2018/10/12

N2 - In gas-solid flows, the drag force experienced by solid particles plays a significant role in determining the fluid dynamics of the system. Although several drag models have been proposed over the years, Gidaspow (1994) and Beetstra (2007) models are the ones that are still most commonly used. There is a lack of availability of work that gauges the capabilities of the newer models that have been developed over the past decade. Hence, this work utilizes three experimental configurations of fluidized beds to compare the performance of recent drag models proposed by Cello et al. (2010), Tenneti et al. (2011), Rong et al. (2013), Tang et al. (2016), and compares them with the drag models by Gidaspow (1994) and Beetstra et al. (2007). Euler-Euler (EE) or Two Fluid Model (TFM) simulations have been conducted for mono-disperse gas-solid fluidized beds containing Geldart-D particles corresponding to two experimental configurations and Geldart-B particles corresponding to one experimental configuration; all these configurations have been found in the literature. The temporal evolution of the ensemble-averaged particle height, time-averaged vertical particle velocity, temporal variation of the bubble diameter, time-averaged void-fraction distribution across the bed, and the time taken for computation are used as the variables for comparisons. It is observed that the drag models by Tenneti et al. (2011), Rong et al. (2013), and Gidaspow (1994) ensure appreciable performance for Geldart-D particles; for Geldart-B particles, the models by Tenneti et al. (2011) and Gidaspow (1994) exhibit satisfactory performance. The models by Beetstra et al. (2007) and Cello et al. (2010) are able to give appreciable performance only in predicting the bubble evolution, and even that at very early time instants, when the maximum solid volume fraction in the bed is about 0.60 (which is smaller than the maximum packing limit of 0.63). Taking both the computational time and solution accuracy into consideration, the model by Tenneti et al. (2011) seems to be the optimal choice for the considered cases, which is closely followed by the model of Gidaspow et al. (1994). The User Defined Functions (UDFs) and another code used for this work are included as Supplementary/Supporting Material.

AB - In gas-solid flows, the drag force experienced by solid particles plays a significant role in determining the fluid dynamics of the system. Although several drag models have been proposed over the years, Gidaspow (1994) and Beetstra (2007) models are the ones that are still most commonly used. There is a lack of availability of work that gauges the capabilities of the newer models that have been developed over the past decade. Hence, this work utilizes three experimental configurations of fluidized beds to compare the performance of recent drag models proposed by Cello et al. (2010), Tenneti et al. (2011), Rong et al. (2013), Tang et al. (2016), and compares them with the drag models by Gidaspow (1994) and Beetstra et al. (2007). Euler-Euler (EE) or Two Fluid Model (TFM) simulations have been conducted for mono-disperse gas-solid fluidized beds containing Geldart-D particles corresponding to two experimental configurations and Geldart-B particles corresponding to one experimental configuration; all these configurations have been found in the literature. The temporal evolution of the ensemble-averaged particle height, time-averaged vertical particle velocity, temporal variation of the bubble diameter, time-averaged void-fraction distribution across the bed, and the time taken for computation are used as the variables for comparisons. It is observed that the drag models by Tenneti et al. (2011), Rong et al. (2013), and Gidaspow (1994) ensure appreciable performance for Geldart-D particles; for Geldart-B particles, the models by Tenneti et al. (2011) and Gidaspow (1994) exhibit satisfactory performance. The models by Beetstra et al. (2007) and Cello et al. (2010) are able to give appreciable performance only in predicting the bubble evolution, and even that at very early time instants, when the maximum solid volume fraction in the bed is about 0.60 (which is smaller than the maximum packing limit of 0.63). Taking both the computational time and solution accuracy into consideration, the model by Tenneti et al. (2011) seems to be the optimal choice for the considered cases, which is closely followed by the model of Gidaspow et al. (1994). The User Defined Functions (UDFs) and another code used for this work are included as Supplementary/Supporting Material.

KW - Drag model validation

KW - Fluidized bed

KW - Gas-solid flow

KW - Momentum exchange

KW - Numerical simulation

KW - Two Fluid Model (TFM)

KW - GRANULAR TEMPERATURE

KW - GAS-SOLID FLOWS

KW - DISCRETE PARTICLE

KW - COEFFICIENT CORRELATIONS

KW - RANDOM ARRAYS

KW - REYNOLDS-NUMBER

KW - FCC PARTICLES

KW - CHAR PARTICLE

KW - NUMERICAL-SIMULATION

KW - CFD-SIMULATION

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047376807&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ces.2018.05.030

DO - 10.1016/j.ces.2018.05.030

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85047376807

VL - 188

SP - 132

EP - 149

JO - Chemical Engineering Science

JF - Chemical Engineering Science

SN - 0009-2509

ER -